Sunday, June 20, 2010

You Cannot Make This Stuff Up, Part 3

In your idiotic ideas file you no longer have to go back to the ancient myths, or even to centuries-old folly such as bloodletting, for we now have evolution--an idea that is promoted at this very time. One of the many inanities of evolution is its serendipity. If evolution is true, then we must believe that all manner of complex biological structures and machinery evolved (somehow) for one function, only then to enable new, revolutionary advancements to occur. Call it evolution's Law of Unintended Consequences.

Consider multicellularity. According to evolutionists, unicellular organisms aggregated and ultimately formed multicellular species. This would not have occurred without certain machines already present in the unicellular organisms. For instance, unicellular organisms have complex machines that secrete proteins whose function have nothing to do with working with other cells. But in multicellular aggregates such machines, according to evolutionary theory, were "recruited" (a favorite word in the evolutionist's lexicon) to fulfill an entirely new mission. Here is how Stuart Newman describes it:

Certain unicellular proteins and other molecules mobilize physical effects in the multicellular context that were unanticipated during their earlier evolution. To take a simple example, all single-celled organisms can secrete protein molecules into the environment around them. These molecules will generally float away, but they may serve to attract prey, repel predators, and so forth. When the external environment consists of other cells, as is the case in a multicellular cluster, the secreted molecule can form a distributed signal – a “morphogen” gradient – that can cause one end of the cluster to be different from another. The gene involved simply specifies the sequence of the secreted protein. What function the protein comes to assume in the new multicellular context has nothing to do with the evolutionary history of that gene, or the selection to which it had been subject. We have called such developmentally efficacious associations of ancient gene products with the physical effects they mobilize in multicellular aggregates “dynamical patterning modules” (DPMs). There are many other such examples.

It is another example of serendipity gone wild in evolutionary theory, but for evolutionist's it is just another event in a long Alice-in-Wonderland history of make believe events.

116 comments:

  1. Just to make sure I understood you correctly, Cornelius.

    Are you calling Stewart Newman's ideas idiotic? That's pretty cocky for a guy who published three papers under supervision and quit science to teach at a Bible college.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It looks like Dr Hunter is attempting to ridicule a clear example of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation

    Exaptation, cooption, and preadaptation are related terms referring to shifts in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As even bacteria communicate and coordinate their activities, it is not all that surprising that these channels of communication can lead to increasing degrees of communication and coordination, especially in far more complex eukaryote organisms.

    Antunesa & Ferreira, Intercellular communication in bacteria, Critical Reviews in Microbiology 2009.

    Bonnie Bassler has made some important findings in this area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, no. Serendipity would be when the floor wax turns out to be a good dessert topping. Recruitment and exaptation don't require the original to be good from the start.

    But as in so many of Dr Hunter's posts, we see no attempt to support a thesis, only ridicule. Get a life, Cornelius. All you are acheiving here is feeding a series of scientific and evolutionary positive examples to your audience, with the weakest of follow-ups. Who has convinced you that this is an effective strategy for communicating your viewpoint?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No Oleg, try reading again. Newman is merely describing the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David, it's apparently effective for the intended audience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius Hunter said...

    No Oleg, try reading again. Newman is merely describing the problem.


    But you're the one showing a pitiful misunderstanding of the topic, and hysterically pushing your ignorance towards your small gaggle of equally ignorant IDC followers.

    You really are a Poe just doing this to make Creationists look like idiots, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well for once I have to disagree with CH.

    Not on content of course, but on the title - "You Cannot Make This Stuff Up"

    Obviously Darwinists do make this stuff up, all the time.

    Darwin was a wonderful story teller. He didn't need any factual evidence, just a phenomenal imagination, expertise in creating scientific sounding sophisms and deep determination to rid science of God.

    And the answers of his disciples to your blog posts only reveal just how much they value "fantasy-as-fact science".

    Unbelievable what a Darwinist will make up or swallow and then arrogantly proclaim as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David said...

    "Exaptation, cooption, and preadaptation are related terms referring to shifts in the function of a trait during evolution...."

    Yes, hand out more ad hoc terms related to what Darwinists invent to cover up their theory's failures.

    Preadaptation? Please! Why not just say designed adaptation?

    "That ain't workin', that's the way ya do it"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thorton: You really are a Poe just doing this to make Creationists look like idiots, right?

    Gary: Darwin was a wonderful story teller. He didn't need any factual evidence, just a phenomenal imagination, expertise in creating scientific sounding sophisms and deep determination to rid science of God.


    ..and right on cue, a Creationist idiot shows up to bleat out his ignorance and misunderstandings.

    Way to go G-man!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stuart Newman along with Gerd Muller formed the inspiration for the celebrated ID peer-reviewed paper linked to here:

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    ReplyDelete
  12. Salvador said...

    Stuart Newman along with Gerd Muller formed the inspiration for the celebrated ID peer-reviewed paper linked to here:


    LOL! "Celebrated" = notorious for the dishonest way it was snuck into publication without undergoing proper scientific peer review.

    The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

    But that's OK Sal, we all know how honesty-challenged you IDCers are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And there goes 'thumpin' Thorton again, thumping away, as if that will do to keep darwinism on life support.

    Thump, thump. Ouch!

    Now there's a nice thumper. Go on now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve said...

    And there goes 'thumpin' Thorton again, thumping away, as if that will do to keep darwinism on life support.


    LOL! "darwinism on life support". You IDC clowns are too funny!

    Have you looked out the window yet Steve? Looked at all those thousands of research labs in colleges, universities, biomedical companies, etc. that are making discoveries and advancing knowledge through the evolution paradigm?

    Can you give me the name of a scientific organization that's using the "life was made by the Intelligent Designer" paradigm to do the same? Because I can't find a single one.

    Now there's a nice IDiot. Go on now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thornton:[Stephen Meyer's paper] was snuck into publication without undergoing proper scientific peer review.

    So, which am I to beleive: the quote you provided or Dr. Sternberg's own words?

    The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."

    http://www.rsternberg.net

    ReplyDelete
  16. Doublee said...

    Thornton:[Stephen Meyer's paper] was snuck into publication without undergoing proper scientific peer review.

    So, which am I to beleive: the quote you provided or Dr. Sternberg's own words?


    LOL! Sure thing. Every last fairly convicted incarcerated felon will tell you he's innocent of his crimes too. Just ask them.

    I think I'll go with the editors of the journal in question who have rejected the paper as being falsely and dishonestly published. That and the fact that the paper wouldn't stand a snowball's chance of passing scientific peer review if it was submitted to a mainstream scientific journal today.

    The whole thing was a dishonest charade so IDC could finally claim a 'peer-reviewed' paper. Didn't work though. The scientific community is less than impressed with such underhanded shenanigans.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Hunter, you wrote:
    "For instance, unicellular organisms have complex machines that secrete proteins whose function have nothing to do with working with other cells."

    Um, yeast are unicellular organisms. Are you telling your audience that the yeast a- and alpha-factors aren't secreted, or that they have nothing to do with working with other cells?

    Here's a review:
    http://2008.igem.org/wiki/images/d/d4/JHU_0708_paper_Awalk.pdf

    Are yeast biologists making stuff up, or are you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "For instance, unicellular organisms have complex machines that secrete proteins whose function have nothing to do with working with other cells."

    Yeah, because microorganisms never work with other cells. Except when those unicellular organisms mate or form biofilms, for example. And they'd never work with another surface-except, ya know, to hang on for dear life and survive. And these are simple (involving one or a few proteins) processes that may be evolutionary precursors to cell-cell adhesion. Oh, and scientists totally never observe unicellular life responding to a chemical gradient and coming together to form colonies, except for the over a dozen protoctistan phyla that do.

    You could mention some of that-along with:

    "According to evolutionists, unicellular organisms aggregated and ultimately formed multicellular species. This would not have occurred without certain machines already present in the unicellular organisms."

    You could have even mentioned Newman's own proposal, clearly outlined in:

    Before programs: The physical origination of multicellular forms
    STUART A. NEWMAN1 GABOR FORGACS and GERD B. MÜLLER
    Int. J. Dev. Biol. 50: 289-299 (2006)

    "Since the pre-metazoan aggregates would thus have been composed of chemically active and responsive cells, they were not only viscoelastic and chemically heterogeneous, they were also excitable media. This means they would have had the potential to elaborate self-organized spatial and temporal patterns of cells with different biochemical states. And in cases where
    these incipient cell types exhibited different amounts of adhesive molecules, adhesion-based sorting-out into distinct tissue layers
    and tandemly arranged segments would have been inevitable. Polarization in the expression of adhesive proteins would lead, as a physical side-effect, to aggregates with lumens; similarly, production of a stiff extracellular layer by an epithelium would cause
    it to act as a viscoelastic sheet with the morphological properties associated with such materials (Mittenthal and Mazo, 1983;
    Beloussov, 1998; reviewed in Newman, 1998)."

    I don't think you are stupid, and I'm sure you can access and read the scientific literature. I think you willfully choose the path of least resistance among your peers. You choose to ignore data, to never actually present evolutionary arguments, and to present half-truths to make evolution look silly.

    Your side has to go to these lengths, so it is to be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  19. diaper boy:
    LOL! "Celebrated" = notorious for the dishonest way it was snuck into publication without undergoing proper scientific peer review.

    You are a liar diaper boy.

    The paper went through a proper peer-review. And your lies cannot change that fact.

    However noticeably absent from peer-reviewed journals is evidence supporting your position...

    ReplyDelete
  20. diaper boy:
    I think I'll go with the editors of the journal in question who have rejected the paper as being falsely and dishonestly published.

    Of course you will.

    However it is very noticeable that those editors have never supported their claim.

    IOW you side with them just because you are a mindless and blind follower...

    ReplyDelete
  21. diaper boy:
    "Looked at all those thousands of research labs in colleges, universities, biomedical companies, etc. that are making discoveries and advancing knowledge through the evolution paradigm?"

    Not one has made any advancements in the name of blind, undirected chemical processes- ie the accumulation of genetic accidents.

    IOW all diaper boy has is equivocation...

    ReplyDelete
  22. "undirected"

    Hmm-the genetic variation going into natural selection is random, but the products of selection are anything but.

    As for random input plus selection never yielding anything through the accumulation of "genetic accidents," you should Google "directed evolution", and "genetic algorithms." Direct observation of evolution accompanied by genomic sequencing is also contributing.

    Here's just one example, where accelerated recombination led to novel functions

    Science. 2010 Apr 16;328(5976):368-72.
    Rapid diversification of cell signaling phenotypes by modular domain recombination.

    Peisajovich SG, Garbarino JE, Wei P, Lim WA.

    Abstract

    Cell signaling proteins are often modular, containing distinct catalytic and regulatory domains. Recombination of such biological modules has been proposed to be a major source of evolutionary innovation. We systematically analyzed the phenotypic diversity of a signaling response that results from domain recombination by using 11 proteins in the yeast mating pathway to construct a library of 66 chimeric domain recombinants. Domain recombination resulted in greater diversity in pathway response dynamics than did duplication of genes, of single domains, or of two unlinked domains. Domain recombination also led to changes in mating phenotype, including recombinants with increased mating efficiency over the wild type. Thus, novel linkages between preexisting domains may have a major role in the evolution of protein networks and novel phenotypic behaviors.

    ReplyDelete
  23. RobertC:
    "Hmm-the genetic variation going into natural selection is random, but the products of selection are anything but."

    I hear that a lot but there is never anything beyond that bald declaration.

    Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan.

    It is a result of three processes.

    It does nothing.

    And again with novel functions but again absent of the novel protein machinery and novel body plans.

    IOW all you have confirms baraminology.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan.
    It is a result of three processes.
    It does nothing."

    Three and only three processes? Really? Which three? Selection is selective, and I've provided numerous examples and whole fields where selection, acting on variation produces non-random (fit) results.

    "And again with novel functions but again absent of the novel protein machinery and novel body plans."

    Those novel functions are the result of novel proteins, Joe. For novel body plans, google "Hox evolution body plan". You'll find references where mutation to Hox genes dramatically changes body plan, and even ones where Hox genes have been swapped between species. Of course, you'll end up asking us to mutate a fly to a mouse in the span of a graduate student career. Not gonna happen with current technology.

    Baraminology is an apologist set of assumptions, not a science. Name one testable baraminological hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  25. JoeG: Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan.

    That is how I understand natural selection, but this understanding leads to a conundrum for me.

    If natural selection is mindless, how do you program "natural selection", that is mindlessness, into an evolutionary algorithm? The evolutionary algorithms of which I am aware have intellgent selection criteria.

    It seems that once you put an intelligent selection criterion into an evolutionary algorithm, the algorithm is no longer representative of a true Darwinian process.

    This is essentially what Dr. David Berlinski said. Evolutionary algorithms that are truly Darwinian don't work, and those that work are not Darwinian.

    If this is true, what does this tell us about the theory of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "If this is true, what does this tell us about the theory of evolution?"

    That your understanding of evolution is wrong.

    What is the difference between imposing selection by fitness and what you call 'intelligent selection?'

    The results of selection, acting on random variation, are not random, and produce functional results.

    ReplyDelete
  27. RobertC: What is the difference between imposing selection by fitness and what you call 'intelligent selection?'

    You say that my understanding of evolution is wrong. Is natural selection not blind and mindless as JoeG stated?

    If you are going to question my understanding of anything, question my understanding of evolutionary algorithms, because that is where I seek clarification.

    How do you impose selection by fitness in an evolutionary algorithm? Does not the fitness function have to be tailored to the digital organisms that the algorithm is working with? In broad terms, does not the programmer have to supply information constrained by the configuration of the digital organism to produce results within the boundaries of the program?

    In other words, I don’t think a design for a more efficient high-frequency antenna will show up in an algorithm that creates more sophisticated logic functions.

    This is not what happens in nature. A variation occurs. It provides a survival advantage. The advantage takes hold in subsequent generations, and the new trait becomes dominant. The question is: what new trait? And why did it get selected? Maybe a plausible explanation can be constructed after the fact, but can one be constructed before the fact?

    Evolution is an unpredictable process. Can an unpredictable process be modeled in a computer?

    ReplyDelete
  28. RobertC:
    Three and only three processes? Really? Which three?

    Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”
    - Allen McNeill

    he too just declares it non-random.

    However if the output relies on random inputs...

    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

    “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


    RobertC:
    Those novel functions are the result of novel proteins, Joe.

    Novel protein MACHINERY- that is what I said.

    And I know all about HOX genes- blind, undirected processes can't explain them.

    They are of no use to your position.

    As for a testable hypothesis- I am sttill waiting for one for your position...

    ReplyDelete
  29. RobertC:
    "The results of selection, acting on random variation, are not random, and produce functional results."

    Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of survivors can be postively linked to differential reproduction of heritable variation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Allen McNeill's definition is nice. I like it, but was not familiar with it. Your 'only three' process claim is bit misleading, since there are many many sources of variation, and nearly an infinite number of potential impacts on fecundity. To restate this as "It is a result of three processes" and can do nothing trivializes it.

    But "which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time" is the point you seem to sorely want to not get. I suppose you have to deny it.

    "RobertC:
    Those novel functions are the result of novel proteins, Joe.

    Novel protein MACHINERY- that is what I said."

    Machinery is a throw-away word here. The yeast recombination experiment caused new phenotypes in multi-protein assemblies and pathways. You can't even calculate complexity, or distinguish design from non-design, so don't even begin to draw lines saying that these experiments produce novel proteins, pathways and phenotypes, but that those aren't 'complex.'

    "And I know all about HOX genes- blind, undirected processes can't explain them.

    They are of no use to your position."

    So says Joe. Personal fiat.

    "
    As for a testable hypothesis- I am sttill waiting for one for your position..."

    Hypothesis: Variation produced by recombination is a key source of genetic diversity for natural selection to produce novel functional outputs.

    Test: Yeast genes are shuffled by domain. Selection is imposed.

    Result: Novel functional proteins and pathways that produce unique phenotypes.

    Science. 2010 Apr 16;328(5976):368-72.
    Rapid diversification of cell signaling phenotypes by modular domain recombination.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Is natural selection not blind and mindless as JoeG stated?"

    Blind and mindless don't mean a lot to me here. Personifying a process doesn't make it clearer. Selection can and does seem responsive by producing more fit phenotypes through differential survival.

    "Does not the fitness function have to be tailored to the digital organisms that the algorithm is working with? In broad terms, does not the programmer have to supply information constrained by the configuration of the digital organism to produce results within the boundaries of the program?

    In other words, I don’t think a design for a more efficient high-frequency antenna will show up in an algorithm that creates more sophisticated logic functions."

    Right. And if populations of organisms are pushed too far, so to speak, they go extinct. I can't drop a Peacock and hen in Antarctica and hope for the best. It is beyond what we could hope for in a fitness landscape. But ask a random pool of RNAs to do catalysis, or E. coli to evolve citrate metabolism, or proteins to have any number of new enzymatic functions, and you'll get results.

    ReplyDelete
  32. RobertC,

    Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of those survivors can be linked to natural selection.

    Also I provided two other definitions which match Allen's.

    RobertC:
    Machinery is a throw-away word here.

    No it is a key word- meaning essential.

    RobertC:
    The yeast recombination experiment caused new phenotypes in multi-protein assemblies and pathways.

    They did not create novel proten machinery from scratch.

    As for HOX genes- they are part of a regulatory network- regulatory networks require planning and foresight.

    As for a testable hypothesis- I am sttill waiting for one for your position..."

    Hypothesis: Variation produced by recombination is a key source of genetic diversity for natural selection to produce novel functional outputs.

    What does that have to do with blind, undirected chemical processes?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Doublee wrote:
    "How do you impose selection by fitness in an evolutionary algorithm? Does not the fitness function have to be tailored to the digital organisms that the algorithm is working with? In broad terms, does not the programmer have to supply information constrained by the configuration of the digital organism to produce results within the boundaries of the program?"

    No. We've done this with nature. Highly specific antibodies evolve by genetic variation and selection in only two weeks in your body.

    Would you bet your house that this system (apparently God, if he designed us, likes Darwinian evolution to solve physiological problems in real time) is constrained so that it only produces antibodies?

    "In other words, I don’t think a design for a more efficient high-frequency antenna will show up in an algorithm that creates more sophisticated logic functions."

    So would you apply that to the production of antibodies by the immune system, and bet your house that we couldn't get any function other than antibodies by changing the selection?

    "This is not what happens in nature. A variation occurs. It provides a survival advantage."

    You're way off. Variations always exist. Sometimes the environment changes, changing the fitness landscape for variants, too.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Doublee:

    "Evolution is an unpredictable process. Can an unpredictable process be modeled in a computer?"

    Evolution is not entirely unpredictable, but, arguendo, suppose it is. Of course that can be modeled. A random walk can be modeled. One of Einstein's major contributions (in fact, his most cited paper) is a model of Brownian motion, the random movement of molecules, which led to the general acceptance of atomic theory.

    They pay big bucks to guys and galls who can use stochastic differential equations to model the pricing of options. That earned Merton and Scholes a Nobel in economics.

    Very similar models are used in evolutionary theory. They allow prediction of statistical trends.

    A nice example of very successful models (yielding confirmed accurate predictions)in evolution is models of sex ratio evolution. Google it to find out more.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aren't there special mechanisms in the immune system that make for rapid changes Like somatic hypermutation, and class switching?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Nat,

    Class switching is irrelevant in this context.

    Are you trying to claim that somatic hypermutation is NOT random with respect to fitness?

    Perhaps you should reread Doublee's question: "Does not the fitness function have to be tailored to the digital organisms that the algorithm is working with?"

    ReplyDelete
  37. "JoeG:

    Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of those survivors can be linked to natural selection."

    What is the remainder? Divine selection? Are you trying to say survival is decoupled from genotype? Quantitatively, one can measure the fitness imposed by a certain allele on a population. As long as there is some difference in survival that is dependent on genotype, selection is occurring.

    "RobertC:
    Machinery is a throw-away word here.

    JoeG: No it is a key word- meaning essential."

    Machinery (an analogy) now means essential? This is hilarious-the classic machinery you all cite love (the flagellum) is generally non-essential to bacterial life. What are you talking about?

    "They did not create novel proten (sic) machinery from scratch."

    What do you expect? Do you want them to assemble proteins from atoms? Often directed evolution experiments have near saturating mutations-large random libraries. Experiments using random peptide libraries, or random RNAs produce catalysts as well.

    "What does that have to do with blind, undirected chemical processes?"

    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Combustion of hydrogen to produce water is governed by chemistry. It doesn't 'see' the future, it is not goal oriented, it is undirected. Similarly, dehydration to form oligomers of nucleic acid proceeds on natural surfaces. Random RNA libraries contain many catalysts. Genetic variation, produced for example, by random mutations acted on by selection, yields novel functions.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Joe G said...

    Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of those survivors can be linked to natural selection.


    Statistically it only takes a small percentage of those with the beneficial variations to outcompete their neighbors for the beneficial variations to spread through and become fixed in the population. That's why it's called differential reproductive success.

    It's like the old joke about the two campers being chased by the bear. One says "we can't outrun that bear!" and the other says "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.

    Natural selection is statistical in nature. Not ever animal with a beneficial variation survives to mate, not ever animal with a deleterious variation dies, but on average that is what happens.

    That's how Las Vegas casinos make money on roulette, where the green 0 and 00 give the house an extra 5% probability of winning. Not ever player who bets loses his money, but on average spread out over the large population of those who play an overall loss (and a gain for the house) is a virtual certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Doublee: If natural selection is mindless, how do you program "natural selection", that is mindlessness, into an evolutionary algorithm? The evolutionary algorithms of which I am aware have intellgent selection criteria.

    Gravity is mindless, but we can create a program to simulate chaotic planetary orbits. Molecular collisions are mindless and essentially random, but we can model Brownian Motion.

    In any case, the environment is not random. We can represent this as a fitness landscape. For instance, we could use letter sequences that mutate and recombine randomly, with longer words being fitter, non-words not viable, and by this manner, explore the landscape of a dictionary. Here's a fun example, Darwin Pond.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of those survivors can be linked to natural selection.


    diaper boy:
    "Statistically it only takes a small percentage of those with the beneficial variations to outcompete their neighbors for the beneficial variations to spread through and become fixed in the population. That's why it's called differential reproductive success."

    Do you have any peer-reviewed data to support your claim?

    Ya see "beneficial" is relative- what is beneficial for one generation isn't necessarily beneficial for the next.

    Then there is cooperation, which appears to be wide-spread.

    Also it is more likely, especially in sexually reproducing populations, that even the most beneficial mutation will become lost.

    If the population is over 1000 then it is almost a given that it will be lost.

    diaper boy:
    "Natural selection is statistical in nature. Not ever animal with a beneficial variation survives to mate, not ever animal with a deleterious variation dies, but on average that is what happens"

    Then there should be plenty of papers documenting natural selection.


    The strength of natural selection in the wild

    ReplyDelete
  41. Organisms survive for many reasons.

    Only a small percentage of those survivors can be linked to natural selection."


    RobertC:
    "What is the remainder?"

    Lucky survivors and individuals who worked good enough.

    RobertC:
    "Quantitatively, one can measure the fitness imposed by a certain allele on a population. As long as there is some difference in survival that is dependent on genotype, selection is occurring."

    Then provide the peer-reviewed papers.

    RobertC:
    "Machinery (an analogy) now means essential?"

    What an idiot.

    The word "machinery" is not an analogy, it is a biological fact.

    Also the word "machinery" doesn't mean essential. The word "machinery" is essential to what i am saying.

    "They did not create novel proten (sic) machinery from scratch."

    RobertC:
    "What do you expect?"

    I expect positive evidence for your position.

    However all you have is to throw deep time at every issue making your position unscientific.

    "What does that have to do with blind, undirected chemical processes?"

    RobertC:
    "I'm not sure what you mean by this."

    Well the ci=urrent theory of evolution posits "blind, undirected chemical processes". Therefor any testable hypothesis must be based on that.

    If it ain't based on that then it ain't a testable hypothesis pertaining to that theory.

    As for random RNA libraries, wake me up when those RNAs form without agency involvement...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Smokey:
    "Would you bet your house that this system (apparently God, if he designed us, likes Darwinian evolution to solve physiological problems in real time) is constrained so that it only produces antibodies?"

    What is your evidence that Darwinian evolution solved anything?

    IOW how do you know it wasn't solved via "built-in responses to environmental cues"? Or some other targeted search?

    ReplyDelete
  43. JoeTard said...

    Do you have any peer-reviewed data to support your claim?


    Yes JoeTard, I do. Quite a bit actually. Here's a few of the several thousand papers found by Google Scholar

    Fitness Effects of Fixed Beneficial Mutations in Microbial Populations

    Clonal Interference and the Periodic Selection of New Beneficial Mutations in Escherichia coli

    Sympatric Speciation Driven by Beneficial Mutations

    JoeTard: Then there should be plenty of papers documenting natural selection.

    There are. Thousands.

    Natural selection on protein-coding genes in the human genome

    Natural selection in action during speciation

    Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans

    JoeTard, you should stick to repairing toasters, because you sure suck at the evolutionary sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  44. RobertC: Blind and mindless don't mean a lot to me here. Personifying a process doesn't make it clearer. Selection can and does seem responsive by producing more fit phenotypes through differential survival.

    I love the irony. The phrase "natural selection" is a personification itself. There is nothing in nature that consciouly selects the advantageous variation. Then to illustrate my point you use the active voice to personify selection when you say that "selection does and can seem responsive..."

    The active voice is used all the time since in most cases its use can can allow someone to express an idea more simply, that is, without a lot of cumbersome qualifying phrases.

    But, to your point, there are cases where personification can lead to confusion or at least lazy thinking. I plead guilty to this myself. I've almost come to believe that there really is a force in nature that applies selection pressure and creates fitness landscapes.

    ReplyDelete
  45. diaper boy,

    Do you have any papers on wild populations?

    As for my sucking in evolutionary sciences- you are totally ignorant of your position!

    How bad is that?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans

    This is no more than speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. diaper boy,

    Are there any papers that actually demonstrate natural selection's "power" or do you just have papers that pay homage to NS?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Funny, those finches. In the years after the drought smaller beaks dominated again. Reverse evolution? Adaptaion, not evolutionary natural selection.

    As for sticklebacks...once they start eating trout I'll believe it. They should evolve bigger teeth and larger bodies if they truly want to be evolutionary superstars.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fil:

    "Funny, those finches. In the years after the drought smaller beaks dominated again. Reverse evolution? Adaptaion, not evolutionary natural selection."

    Adaptation is the result of natural selection. If selection pressures fluctuate between years, then evolution will also show a fluctuating pattern, as long as the trait in question has a heritable basis. What is so hard to understand about this?

    Your language betrays that you are unfamiliar with the scientific literature, yet you obviously feel qualified to criticize the science. Why? Because your pastor told you that evolution is a threat to your religion? Don't you feel any ethical obligation to know what you are talking about? I guess not. Creationists that get involved in debating about evolution are nearly always liars.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "As for sticklebacks...once they start eating trout I'll believe it. They should evolve bigger teeth and larger bodies if they truly want to be evolutionary superstars."

    You know Sticklebacks eat tiny crustaceans and insects, and are only inches long? Not everything evolves to be a big apex predator-nor is that necessarily the route to evolutionary success.

    Quite the opposite-the world is full of very successful small creatures. Krill probably have the greatest numbers and biomass among animals, and even they are outnumbered by ocean bacteria and algae.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Fil: "Funny, those finches. In the years after the drought smaller beaks dominated again. Reverse evolution?"

    Fil, change is change. When the environment changes, a population's physical characteristics track those changes. When you paint blue room green, then paint it blue again, is that 'reverse painting'?

    "Adaptaion, not evolutionary natural selection."

    I'm not sure what definition of adaptation you're using if it's not related to natural selection. That natural selection causes adaptation isn't even controversial among young earth creationists.

    "As for sticklebacks...once they start eating trout I'll believe it. They should evolve bigger teeth and larger bodies if they truly want to be evolutionary superstars."

    Fil, you seem to be one of the more intelligent IDers on this site, and at least one of the most pleasant to have a discussion with, (the anti-Joe, if you will) But that statement seems to indicate a deep misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory posits about what we should be able to observe. It's kind of like the old question: "If people evolved from monkeys, why don't we see monkeys evolving into people today?" Sticklebacks have found an ecological niche and filled it quite nicely. For them to be 'evolutionary super-duper-stars' would they have to evolve teeth and bodies big enough to eat the bears that eat the trout? That animals will always evolve to be bigger and stronger isn't a prediction of evolution. It's like saying "I'll believe evolution once turtles start flying."

    ReplyDelete
  52. "It's like saying "I'll believe evolution once turtles start flying."

    That would do it for me actually.

    The Grants also said that instead of diverging species their interbreeding may cause them to become a single species within 200 years..... I wonder if that means within a few hundred million all life on earth will have merged into one species again? Reverse common descent if you will.

    "If people evolved from monkeys, why don't we see monkeys evolving into people today?"

    If people evolved from monkeys and populations evolve then why do we still have monkeys?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Fil:

    "If people evolved from monkeys and populations evolve then why do we still have monkeys?"

    There is no hope for Fil. That's about as stupid as asking "If I grew up from being a baby then why are there still babies?"

    ReplyDelete
  54. Adaptation presupposes an inherent ability to adapt to environmental pressure

    vs.

    Evolutionary Natural Selection presupposes lucky mutations improving survival.

    "...then evolution will also show a fluctuating pattern" LOL

    AND

    How many lucky mutations would be required to account for finch beak changes to come from new genetic traits ...in this fluctuating environment? (..from a state where the traits was not there before, at all.) Let the faithful bow before the awesome power of lucky mutations, but don't call it science.

    The only thing that is clear from nature is that optimal designs exist that has extraordinary adaptive capabilities.

    P.S. Troy, your inability to comprehend the difference between adaptation and evolutionary natural selection, coupled with your arrogant attack against the integrity of someone with a different opinion than yours, expose a lot about your character and the arguments you have available to support your point.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lmao Troy. Love you too man.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Fil: "If people evolved from monkeys and populations evolve then why do we still have monkeys?"

    *sigh*

    Fil, I used that statement as a rhetorical example of a question that would indicate a thorough misunderstanding of evolution on many, many levels. I'm a little disappointed that you appear to be genuinely asking it. It would literally take pages to go over every misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that question conveys.

    First of all, evolutionary theory doesn't say humans evolved from modern monkeys, modern apes, or any other modern animal. It says we have a common ancestor with them. On one level, this question would be like asking: "If I'm a descendent of my cousins, why are my cousins still around? It is both factually wrong [you're not descendent of your cousins] and conceptually wrong [your ancestors don't have to be absent for you to be present; I was alive concurrently with both my father and grandfather.]

    Secondly, the groups of apes we evolved from, the common ancestor we share with modern apes, aren't around anymore. Their lineages either died off or evolved into chimps, gorillas, orangs, or us.

    Thirdly, evolution isn't directed like that; being human isn't a 'goal' of primates to evolve into. If you were to put two identical groups of organisms in two different environments, they would evolve differently.

    I could go on and on. Point being it was a rhetorical question that would normally only be asked by someone who had no idea of what evolutionary theory actually says.

    "It's like saying "I'll believe evolution once turtles start flying."
    That would do it for me actually."

    Again, Fil, that statement was meant to be an example of the type of statement that only someone who had no understanding of evolutionary theory would say. Evolution doesn't predict that new fully formed features pop out of thin air with no precedent, or that new features arise in timespans short enough for a human to observe in real time.

    Actually Fil, if I saw turtles all of a sudden start flying, that would convince me that God does intervene in biology!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Fil wrote:
    "That would do it for me actually."

    What suggests to you that evolutionary theory predicts that turtles would fly, instead of it predicting that they would never fly?

    "The Grants also said that instead of diverging species their interbreeding may cause them to become a single species within 200 years..... I wonder if that means within a few hundred million all life on earth will have merged into one species again? Reverse common descent if you will."

    Evolutionary theory predicts a lot of fuzziness at the edges of speciation. What does your theory predict?

    "If people evolved from monkeys and populations evolve then why do we still have monkeys?"

    What makes you think that any of the biologists here would conclude that we evolved from monkeys, instead of humans and monkeys having a common ancestor, with that population diverging over time to produce today's monkeys and humans on different branches?

    Your arrogance is preventing you from even making the most feeble attempt to understand what evolutionary theory is actually about.

    ReplyDelete
  58. It's always the same dull and predictable sequence of events: 1. Article is posted criticizing Darwin and/or Evolutionism. 2. Atheists and orthodox Darwinists swoop down and attack (summary: "You are all doo doo heads!"). 3. Creationists and ID proponents point out the lack of logic and the religious aspects of Evolutionism. 4. Repeat point 2 because basement-dwelling disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins have neither logic nor lives. 5. I point out how ridiculous the Dawkinsites are. 6. I get flamed. 7. My own site's criticisms of atheism and Evolutionism are trolled. 8. Dawkinsites complain about me in off-topic posts in other Weblogs and get angry because my comments are shut off.

    Teasing evolutionists is fun, I must admit. After all, they do not respond to science.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Michael wrote:
    "Evolutionary Natural Selection presupposes lucky mutations improving survival."

    No, it doesn't. Darwinian evolution presupposes variance within a population, with at least some of it being heritable. No one who looks at human children and their parents can deny these facts.

    Darwin didn't say a word about mutation or randomness.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Smokey, now I have to lmao. Good luck finding a logical contradiction between your statement and mine.

    ReplyDelete
  61. OK... I will help you. Where does the variance come from...?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Michael,

    You aren't helping anyone.

    I know the mutation rate. I know how polymorphic human populations are. Knowing those two facts will tell you how much of the variance is due to your "lucky" (i.e., new) mutations.

    Do you?

    You wrote:
    "Adaptation presupposes an inherent ability to adapt to environmental pressure"

    Yes, that genetic variation provides a population with an inherent ability to adapt to environmental changes.

    You aren't one of those goofballs who tries to claim that individuals evolve instead of populations, are you?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Didn't the sticklebacks actually lose parts? The loss just happened to confer a benefit. Can you reaosn from there that ther can be a gain of a part?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Stormbringer:

    "Teasing evolutionists is fun, I must admit. After all, they do not respond to science."

    The very word "evolutionists" suggests that you believe that evolution didn't happen and that some sort of cult ("ists") is trying to trick you into believing it. I am on the right track?

    Yet almost no professional scientist who has studied the evidence doubts that evolution did, in fact, occur. The main scientific question is how did it occur. So far, only natural selection can explain adaptation. Many studies support this. What's your explanation and what's your evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Smokey,

    You are funny! Are you one of those goofballs that think the gene carrying unit is a population and not an individual organism?

    ReplyDelete
  66. So, Mikey, how about answering my questions first? Whattsa matter, are you afraid?

    Nat wrote:
    "Didn't the sticklebacks actually lose parts? The loss just happened to confer a benefit. Can you reaosn from there that ther can be a gain of a part?"

    Some of the sticklebacks lost parts, some gained parts. Perhaps you should learn more before making up your mind.

    How many mutations are needed for a human to gain a new vertebra? A new finger?

    ReplyDelete
  67. "It would literally take pages to go over every misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that question conveys."

    lol I actually googled that question before I wrote it. I thought using a variation of your question would be fun though. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Michael:

    "P.S. Troy, your inability to comprehend the difference between adaptation and evolutionary natural selection, coupled with your arrogant attack against the integrity of someone with a different opinion than yours, expose a lot about your character and the arguments you have available to support your point."

    Michael, I do understand the difference between adaptation and NS. I wrote before that the former is a result of the latter. I am also a professional scientist, a mathematician specialized in models of evolution. If data contradict a model, I'd rather discard the model than the data. You and your creationist friends work the other way around: you start with your conclusion (Jesus is Lord, original sin, Adam & Eve, etc) and try to fit the data to your preconceived conclusions. That's anti-science. You may think that's arrogant, but I think you're just angry because you know you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Your arrogance is preventing you from even making the most feeble attempt to understand what evolutionary theory is actually about. "

    Yeah, but being arrogant and ignorant is more fun than being you.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Fil has a point: it might be more fun to be a moron. Animals don't know they're mortal.

    ReplyDelete
  71. You are mortal? Wow, me too.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Michael said...

    Smokey,

    You are funny! Are you one of those goofballs that think the gene carrying unit is a population and not an individual organism?


    Michael,

    You are clueless. Are you one of those dirt-ignorant ICDers who doesn't understand the concept of a gene pool, and who doesn't understand that a single individual is not representative of all the genetic variation in a population?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Fil said...

    "Your arrogance is preventing you from even making the most feeble attempt to understand what evolutionary theory is actually about. "

    Yeah, but being arrogant and ignorant is more fun than being you.


    Ignorance may be bliss Fil, but willful ignorance like I see from so many IDCers is just sad.

    Do you like staying willfully ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Stormbringer said: "It's always the same dull and predictable sequence of events: 1. Article is posted criticizing Darwin and/or Evolutionism. 2. Atheists and orthodox Darwinists swoop down and attack (summary: "You are all doo doo heads!"). 3. Creationists and ID proponents point out the lack of logic and the religious aspects of Evolutionism. 4. Repeat point 2 because basement-dwelling disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins have neither logic nor lives. 5. I point out how ridiculous the Dawkinsites are. 6. I get flamed. 7. My own site's criticisms of atheism and Evolutionism are trolled. 8. Dawkinsites complain about me in off-topic posts in other Weblogs and get angry because my comments are shut off."

    Stormbringer, I wholeheartedly agree that these posts follow the same predictable sequence of events; (though they're anything but dull) but I disagree with you slightly on the order. To me they seem to go more like: 1. Article is posted about how some new finding somehow refutes the IDist's distorted or uninformed view of evolution. 2. People who are somewhat to very literate in science, some atheist, some agnostic, some Christian, point out that what the finding refutes is a made up, straw-man version of evolutionary theory, 3. the IDers and creationists, (many of whom appear to be otherwise fairly intelligent and probably are proficient in their respective fields whether it be computer programming, engineering, or law, but have little to no training in the life sciences) 'swoop' in and respond. (summary: "Who's to say God- er - I mean the 'Designer', didn't just make it that way for some odd reason?") 4. The semi- to very-scientifically literate participants try politely (and sometimes not-so-politely) to point out the egregious misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and outright distortions of modern evolutionary theory that the ID/Cs make. 5. Repeat a few of the previous steps, throwing in a few personal attacks here and there.

    At least that's my take on things.

    "Teasing evolutionists is fun, I must admit. After all, they do not respond to science."

    Personally, I don't take personal enjoyment out of teasing or mocking anyone for seeing things differently than me. I don't respond to posts here because I like to feel smarter than anyone; I post because I see people that I call brothers having the same misunderstandings about an aspect of biology that I used to have; making the same logical fallacies that I used to make. Although, I do admit, ridicule is sometimes an appropriate response to ridiculous statements such as are seen here sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Troy,

    For a self declared clever person your condition could only be because you have been led down the primrose path... (It happens to clever people, real and self perceived.)

    Let me put it in your face and see how far you have wandered away from reality.

    An individual organism experience the population of the same/similar organisms (i.e. organisms that can share/procreate genes with in most cases) it is in direct contact with ONLY as an environmental impact on that individual's ability to survive and/or reproduce. That is it... nothing more nothing less.

    The evolutionary notions that "populations evolve" are nothing more than making an unwarranted distinction between the environmental conditions caused by other similar organisms and the rest of the very complex environment.

    It should now be clear why it would be stupid to think that the adapting genes of individuals are NOT the ONLY base unit of genetic changes. If it does not happen with an individual it will never become a statistical norm (however small or big...) for the population.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Michael: The evolutionary notions that "populations evolve" are nothing more than making an unwarranted distinction between the environmental conditions caused by other similar organisms and the rest of the very complex environment.

    Most of your prose doesn't seem to parse, but populations do evolve. That is, the heritable composition of populations do change over time. That's a direct observation. In addition, we can show that these changes are sometimes due to natural selection, that is, heritable differences can cause differential reproductive advantage. Furthermore, we can show a historical pattern of Common Descent and incremental adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Michael:

    "An individual organism experience the population of the same/similar organisms (i.e. organisms that can share/procreate genes with in most cases) it is in direct contact with ONLY as an environmental impact on that individual's ability to survive and/or reproduce. That is it... nothing more nothing less."

    Could you please translate this into English? My Gibberish is a bit rusty.

    Michael:
    "The evolutionary notions that "populations evolve" are nothing more than making an unwarranted distinction between the environmental conditions caused by other similar organisms and the rest of the very complex environment."

    When I say that a population evolved, I mean that the population distribution of phenotypes has changed across generations. This is usually accompanied by a correlated change in the population distribution of genotypes (or allele frequencies if you prefer). This can be observed without any reference to the environment (minus the population itself).

    Michael:
    "t should now be clear why it would be stupid to think that the adapting genes of individuals are NOT the ONLY base unit of genetic changes. If it does not happen with an individual it will never become a statistical norm (however small or big...) for the population."

    I am trying to decipher your prose in your favor. Are you trying to say that for changes at the population level to occur, changes at the individual level are required? If so, what stupid person has denied this?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Zachriel,

    You show no insight into the problem statement. A population forms ONLY an environmental influence on the constituting organisms individually. It is only changes in this "base unit of genetic content" / "a single organism" that account for changes in populations. A consequence of this change is that the population's environmental influence on the individuals might also change.

    Organisms altering its own environment is just adding complexity to the efficacy of proposed evolutionary processes. An advantage for a single organism might become a huge disadvantage when it propagate throughout the populations and visa versa.

    Nothing about the models you propose change the fact that genetic change** is only in response to its environment (...including the population it is part of). Talking about evolving populations is of no more consequence than a large scale temperature change in the environment.

    **genetic changes are only caused by ...pre-existing adaptive capability in particular as well as genetic variability in general... acting out.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Troy,

    My objective was to show that "evolving populations" is of no consequence in the arguments you propose. It is not a magic "get-out-of-jail-card" as you presented it.

    Just an interesting thought.
    Any system will start to break down under environmental systems that exceeds its ability to adapt. In the case of bacteria being pressured by anti-biotics in its environment, everything is showing that the bacteria will lose the battle in the end... but at what cost to other life forms?

    This is a very useful ID prediction... Pre-existing unique mechanisms of adaptation should be prevalent in living systems. Like the finch beaks. It has and will help us understand organisms responses to environmental pressures... Improving crop yields in drier conditions etc.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Michael said...

    Zachriel,

    You show no insight into the problem statement. A population forms ONLY an environmental influence on the constituting organisms individually. It is only changes in this "base unit of genetic content" / "a single organism" that account for changes in populations. A consequence of this change is that the population's environmental influence on the individuals might also change.


    LOL! It's always amusing to watch an armchair philosophizer like Mikey here who is clueless on evolutionary biology try to 'correct' 150 years of solid science.

    Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency of a population over time you twit. Any one individual will hold only a portion of the genetic variation available in the entire population. Natural selection acts on individuals, determining which will die and which will survive to make continuing contributions to the gene pool. The net result is a change to the genetic makeup of the population.

    That's Biology 101 Mikey. I guess they didn't teach you that in Vacation Bible school where you learned the rest of your science.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Michael:

    "Organisms altering its own environment is just adding complexity to the efficacy of proposed evolutionary processes. An advantage for a single organism might become a huge disadvantage when it propagate throughout the populations and visa versa."

    Congratulations, you have just re-discovered what is known in the scientific literature as "frequency-dependent selection". Been there done that.

    Michael:
    "Just an interesting thought.
    Any system will start to break down under environmental systems that exceeds its ability to adapt. In the case of bacteria being pressured by anti-biotics in its environment, everything is showing that the bacteria will lose the battle in the end... but at what cost to other life forms?"

    If anti-biotics don't keep co-evolving with bacterial resistance, then will win the battle in the end, as the evolution of multi-resistant strains of, say, TBC shows. At considerable cost to society. An interesting thought, indeed, but again not very original.

    Michael:
    "This is a very useful ID prediction... Pre-existing unique mechanisms of adaptation should be prevalent in living systems. Like the finch beaks. It has and will help us understand organisms responses to environmental pressures... Improving crop yields in drier conditions etc."

    Great. Go write a grant proposal to that (so far very vague) effect, and do humankind a huge service.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Michael said...

    This is a very useful ID prediction... Pre-existing unique mechanisms of adaptation should be prevalent in living systems. Like the finch beaks. It has and will help us understand organisms responses to environmental pressures... Improving crop yields in drier conditions etc.


    That's not an "ID prediction" you twit. The mechanism for adaptation is genetic variation (from sexual recombination or new mutations) filtered by selection. That has been understood ever since the functioning of DNA was discovered.

    It's hilarious how IDCers are so desperate to score any points for their pathetic 'theory' they try and take credit for things science has already known for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anyone else notice that Joe G has disappeared?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Michael: A population forms ONLY an environmental influence on the constituting organisms individually.

    Your prose is impenetrable.

    Michael: It is only changes in this "base unit of genetic content" / "a single organism" that account for changes in populations.

    Yes, a population is comprised of individuals. That doesn't mean we can't look at the population as a whole; for instance, seeing that its average phenotype changes over time.

    Michael: A consequence of this change is that the population's environmental influence on the individuals might also change.

    Yes, the environment includes many factors which may change over time. That doesn't mean evolution hasn't occurred. Just consider the simple and replicable result of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

    Michael: Organisms altering its own environment is just adding complexity to the efficacy of proposed evolutionary processes.

    Yes, it can be complicated. We can use something called "experiments," though, to tease out specific relationships.

    Michael: An advantage for a single organism might become a huge disadvantage when it propagate throughout the populations and visa versa.

    Sometimes.

    Michael: Nothing about the models you propose change the fact that genetic change** is only in response to its environment (...including the population it is part of).

    That's what natural selection is all about, Michael. The change in heritable characteristics due to the environment. However, the specific variations that make an organism fitter don't occur in direct response to the environment, but are subject to selection only after they occur.

    Michael: Talking about evolving populations is of no more consequence than a large scale temperature change in the environment.

    A large scale temperature change can be of some consequence.

    Michael: **genetic changes are only caused by ...pre-existing adaptive capability in particular as well as genetic variability in general... acting out.

    So this is your point. We can show that mutations are random with respect to fitness, at least in some cases.

    Michael: In the case of bacteria being pressured by anti-biotics in its environment, everything is showing that the bacteria will lose the battle in the end... but at what cost to other life forms?

    Bacteria seem to be doing quite well. They constitute the largest biomass on the planet, and feed on humans, among other things.

    ReplyDelete
  86. troy said: "Anyone else notice that Joe G has disappeared?"

    quiet! Don't jinx it!

    ReplyDelete
  87. ""Your arrogance is preventing you from even making the most feeble attempt to understand what evolutionary theory is actually about. "

    Yeah, but being arrogant and ignorant is more fun than being you.

    Ignorance may be bliss Fil, but willful ignorance like I see from so many IDCers is just sad.

    Do you like staying willfully ignorant? "

    I would rather be wilfully ignorant than be a (insert vulgar word) like Smokey, the person I was addressing.

    Am I wilfully ignorant? That's a matter of perception. And the only persons perception I care about, with regards to this blog, is my own. I read many of the links provided and am slowly educating myself here and elsewhere. Don't believe that will force me to come to a conclusion that matches yours.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Smokey:
    "Would you bet your house that this system (apparently God, if he designed us, likes Darwinian evolution to solve physiological problems in real time) is constrained so that it only produces antibodies?"

    "What is your evidence that Darwinian evolution solved anything?"

    Joe, there is a massive amount of evidence showing that the adaptive immune response produces new antibodies by variation (random wrt fitness) and selection. In fact, this is one of the cases in which the steps are all well-understood…well, not by you.

    "IOW how do you know it wasn't solved via "built-in responses to environmental cues"? Or some other targeted search?"

    The results of experiments done by thousands of immunologists over decades, including Nobel Prize-winning research.

    This is a good start:
    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1984/jerne-lecture.pdf

    So how about it, Joe: would you bet your house that this system is constrained so that it only produces antibodies?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Fil wrote:
    "Yeah, but being arrogant and ignorant is more fun than being you."

    Why is being arrogant and ignorant more fun than doing biomedical research?

    "I would rather be wilfully ignorant than be a (insert vulgar word) like Smokey, the person I was addressing."

    I didn't know that "biomedical researcher" was vulgar in your circles.

    "Am I wilfully ignorant? That's a matter of perception."

    No, it's a matter of fact.

    "Don't believe that will force me to come to a conclusion that matches yours."

    You've already come to a conclusion, Fil.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "I didn't know that "biomedical researcher" was vulgar in your circles."

    A biomedical researcher? Im impressed! You must be like Doogie Howser. Brilliant and immature.

    "You've already come to a conclusion, Fil. "

    So have you except, of course, YOU are right.

    While you are at it tell me how life began O brilliant one.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Fil:
    "Don't believe that will force me to come to a conclusion that matches yours."

    Me:
    "You've already come to a conclusion, Fil."

    Fil:
    "So have you except, of course, YOU are right."

    No, the difference would be that my conclusions are based on the evidence. BTW, thanks for admitting that you were being dishonest when you acted like you had yet to reach a conclusion.

    "While you are at it tell me how life began O brilliant one."

    I don't know. I do know what's consistent with the evidence. Can you name three simple facts that are consistent with life beginning as replicating, catalytic RNA, O Arrogant One?

    ReplyDelete
  93. "BTW, thanks for admitting that you were being dishonest when you acted like you had yet to reach a conclusion."

    Conclusions in life are not like the conclusion of a book or a movie. Life ones may be revised.

    I have come to a conclusion. It will take a great deal to make me change my mind. The evidence you accept I find insufficient. I am not alone in this. Others with scientific minds far, far superior to my own believe it too.

    "I don't know."

    Yes, you do. You are just wilfully ignorant.

    "Can you name three simple facts that are consistent with life beginning as replicating, catalytic RNA, O Arrogant One? "

    1) You are wilfully blind to a designer.

    2) You are a wishful thinker(I use that last word loosely).

    3) You are running out of materialistic options to turn to regarding the beginning of where life came from.

    Are those the 3 you are looking for or should I go on, O Brilliantly Arrogant One.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Smokey said: "So how about it, Joe: would you bet your house that this system is constrained so that it only produces antibodies?"

    Smokey, do you really think there is anything to gain by having Joe back in this discussion? Just look at the second page of comments in the "Why Coyne is False" where Zachriel (and others) try to explain to Joe what a nested hierarchy is and why it is a feature of common ancestry. It's worse than talking to a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Fil:
    "I have come to a conclusion. It will take a great deal to make me change my mind."

    Your conclusion is based on fear and lies.

    "The evidence you accept I find insufficient."

    You're lying. Your eyes are closed; you're afraid to look for evidence or at evidence.

    "I am not alone in this. Others with scientific minds far, far superior to my own believe it too."

    That's a pretty low bar, since you were stupid enough to claim that evolutionary theory is about humans evolving from monkeys.

    BTW, it's not about belief on my side.

    I wrote, "I don't know."

    "Yes, you do. You are just wilfully ignorant."

    Huh? What is it that I know, exactly?

    I asked: "Can you name three simple facts that are consistent with life beginning as replicating, catalytic RNA, O Arrogant One? "

    Fil demonstrated his fear of facts by bailing out:

    "1) You are wilfully blind to a designer."

    A lie. Offer a testable ID hypothesis and we'll see. Here's one: an omnipotent Intelligent Designer designed alternative splicing and gene regulation to be efficient.

    "2) You are a wishful thinker(I use that last word loosely)."

    That's your idea of a funny?

    "3) You are running out of materialistic options to turn to regarding the beginning of where life came from."

    All we have are hypotheses. Some of us are testing them. You cower in fear instead.

    "Are those the 3 you are looking for or should I go on, O Brilliantly Arrogant One."

    You just showed your unwillingness to look at the evidence perfectly.


    Derick Childress said…
    "Smokey, do you really think there is anything to gain by having Joe back in this discussion?"

    I think that Joe is the perfect poster boy for ID.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Derick Childress: It's worse than talking to a wall.

    If you take a stone hammer to a stone wall, each swing may only knock a chip or two out of place, but eventually, you will knock the wall down. Joe is adamantine to argument.

    Smokey: I think that Joe is the perfect poster boy for ID.

    Joe is Joe. The key is that the ID Community won't call him out. That's because without a grounding in fact, there is no basis to distinguish science from interesting speculation from crackpottery. ID will never have credibility because of this. ID is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Smokey:
    Joe, there is a massive amount of evidence showing that the adaptive immune response produces new antibodies by variation (random wrt fitness) and selection.

    You mean random with respect to your ignorance.

    You do realize that the immune system is evidence for ID?

    Or do you have any scientifuic data which demonstrates it arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Zachriel:
    "ID is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile."

    Nice projection Zach.

    It is also very telling that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    That must be because you are intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile...

    ReplyDelete
  99. smokey:
    ?"Offer a testable ID hypothesis and we'll see."

    Why don't you present one for your position?

    Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

    I can already read the responses-

    That isn't a hypothesis

    Well in that case produce one that supports your position so we can compare.

    Here is a prediction- not one evotard will produce a testable hypothsis pertaining to blind, undirected (chemical) processes...

    ReplyDelete
  100. Zachriel said...

    Derick Childress: It's worse than talking to a wall.

    If you take a stone hammer to a stone wall, each swing may only knock a chip or two out of place, but eventually, you will knock the wall down. Joe is adamantine to argument.

    Smokey: I think that Joe is the perfect poster boy for ID.

    Joe is Joe. The key is that the ID Community won't call him out. That's because without a grounding in fact, there is no basis to distinguish science from interesting speculation from crackpottery. ID will never have credibility because of this. ID is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.


    JoeTard really is the perfect poster boy for ID. Immature, mouthy, arrogant, habitual liar, dumb as a sack of doorknobs, has his few little memorized catch-phrases he spews out over and over ("Evo can't be tested!! Things can't form by blind undirected accidents!!" You don't know your own position!!")

    All you need to know about Intelligent Design Creationism wrapped up in one stinky little package.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Joe G: Observation: The Universe

    Heh.

    blipey: Given that you observe the universe (wow, deep)...

    Tee hee!

    Joe G: If an universe was designed for humans it would be humanable.

    Heehaw!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Thank you Zachriel for fulfilling another prediction...

    And please stop putting words in my mouth.

    I did not say-

    If an universe was designed for humans it would be humanable.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Intelligent Design Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant and immature little evotards...

    ReplyDelete
  104. diaper boy:
    ("Evo can't be tested!! Things can't form by blind undirected accidents!!" You don't know your own position!!")

    Evolution can be tested.

    Things can form by blind undirected accidents.

    And I have proven that you don't know your own position.

    So all diaper boy can do is continue to act like an immature jerk.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  105. diaper boy:
    Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency of a population over time you twit.

    Which is why neither ID nor Creation is anti-evolution as they both accept that allele frequencies can change over time, you imbecile.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Your conclusion is based on fear and lies."

    Wow. You must know me better than I know myself.

    "You're lying. Your eyes are closed; you're afraid to look for evidence or at evidence."

    No. I look at facts. I don't twist them into evidence for something that isn't true like you do.

    "That's a pretty low bar, since you were stupid enough to claim that evolutionary theory is about humans evolving from monkeys."

    LMAO. If you took that question and interpreted it that way no wonder you can't interpret facts right.

    "Huh? What is it that I know, exactly?"

    That you will never find a materialistic explanation for the origin of life since it didn't begin that way. Keep on trying though if it makes you happy.

    ""1) You are wilfully blind to a designer."

    A lie. "

    So you are blind and don't even know it....I'm trying to determine which is more sad.

    "That's your idea of a funny?"

    It's pretty mild compared to the insults you throw around actually.

    "All we have are hypotheses. Some of us are testing them. You cower in fear instead."

    Have fun. What will you do when you run out of hypotheses to test?

    "You just showed your unwillingness to look at the evidence perfectly."

    I said "or should I go on"? You must have missed that part. Wikipedia under RNA World theory speaks to the " three simple facts that are consistent with life beginning as replicating, catalytic RNA" as you put it. For RNA to be self-repliating, however, it actually needs to come into existance first. Try working on that.

    Funny how Smokeys arguments go. Quotes.

    "I am saying that you should examine the evidence for yourself. You are afraid to do so."

    Ok. We look at the facts. Then when we disagree we get.

    "I didn't know that "biomedical researcher" was vulgar in your circles."

    "Nat:"Where am I coming across as arrogant?"

    Smokey: When you claim to understand biology better than practicing biologists do."

    "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence.

    That being said, you are clearly claiming to understand biology better than the people who actually produce the evidence, which you're afraid to examine for yourself."

    So....I will quit my job. Go to university. Spend the next 20 years or so studying biology,etc, etc and if I still agree with intelligent design then what? Smokey will say I am wilfully ignorant even if I am educated.

    You see Smokey. You can say all you want about others looking at evidence and interpreting it but you cannot simply conceive that anyone could do that and come away not believing in evolution. It is that ingrained in you. If someone unschooled doesn't believe it they are ignorant. If someone educated doesn't the are wilfully ignorant. Then you proceed to berate them. How wonderfully intolerant of you. To mock those who have a different belief than you do. Intellectual intolerance is one of the steps on the path to physical intolerance and oppression. In the middle ages you would have been one of those priests lighting the fire under someone who possesed a bible or spoke out. It's ridiculously pathetic for someone with your education.

    I'll let you have the last word as I will not bother responding to you again.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Fil wrote:
    "Wow. You must know me better than I know myself."

    On this matter, absolutely. Your rhetorical tricks are tired and predictable. All avoidance and cowardice all the time.

    "No. I look at facts."

    No, you refuse to look at the facts.

    "I don't twist them into evidence for something that isn't true like you do."

    See, you've already made up your mind without the facts.

    "That you will never find a materialistic explanation for the origin of life since it didn't begin that way. Keep on trying though if it makes you happy."

    Which one of us is claiming greater knowledge on fewer facts here? BTW, I'm not an abiogenesis researcher.

    I wrote, "All we have are hypotheses. Some of us are testing them. You cower in fear instead."

    "Have fun. What will you do when you run out of hypotheses to test?"

    Never. Why are you afraid to test any?

    I wrote, "You just showed your unwillingness to look at the evidence perfectly."

    "I said "or should I go on"? You must have missed that part."

    No, it was irrelevant because you went for the personal attack over facts.

    "Wikipedia under RNA World theory speaks to the " three simple facts that are consistent with life beginning as replicating, catalytic RNA" as you put it."

    You're lying again. It only includes one of them. What are you afraid of?

    "For RNA to be self-repliating, however, it actually needs to come into existance first. Try working on that."

    The question you're dodging in such a cowardly way is about life as it is today.

    "Ok. We look at the facts. Then when we disagree we get."

    No, you avoid the facts.

    "So....I will quit my job. Go to university. Spend the next 20 years or so studying biology,etc, etc and if I still agree with intelligent design then what? Smokey will say I am wilfully ignorant even if I am educated."

    You won't do any of that, just as ID proponents who have already been trained quit studying biology. The point is that your certainty has no foundation. At some level, you realize that, which is why you are pathologically afraid of evidence.

    "You see Smokey. You can say all you want about others looking at evidence and interpreting it but you cannot simply conceive that anyone could do that and come away not believing in evolution."

    Another lie. You don't look at evidence, and it's not about belief.

    "It is that ingrained in you. If someone unschooled doesn't believe it they are ignorant."

    If someone dodges examining the evidence, he is ignorant. That's what you are doing in spades.

    ReplyDelete
  108. smokey,

    Seeing that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for blind, undirected processes it is clear there isn't any evidence...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Since Joe G is obviously a blind and undirected process, I have constructed a Markov chain model of his behavior (unfortunately, it's too hard to type math here) which predicts that Joe G will continue to spout nonsense here. If Joe never comes back, the hypothesis is refuted. If not...

    ReplyDelete
  110. What nonsense am I spouting?

    Please be specific...

    Or are you just another evotard liar?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Selection is blind and the mutations are mistakes- meaning they are undirected.

    I have posted valid evolutionary sources to make my case.

    OTOH butt-lickers like diaper boy troy can only spew false accusations my way.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  112. "Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement."- Eric B. Knox page 4 in "Biological Journal of the Linnean Society" (1998), 63: 1–49.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Do I hear a great big hissing sound coming out of the blind watchmaker's argument???

    Groundbreaking research a huge discover of function for pseudogenes and new RNA language...

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7301/pdf/4651016a.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  114. Pastor Neal wrote:
    "Do I hear a great big hissing sound coming out of the blind watchmaker's argument???"

    No, all I hear is the hissing of your arrogance, hypocrisy, and cognitive dissonance.

    "Groundbreaking research a huge discover of function for pseudogenes and new RNA language…"

    1) A function was found for ONE pseudogene. Try reading beyond the headline. Maybe you could read the actual paper, not the N&V article.

    2) Since you're all about pulling quotes, what do you make of the figure legend "Evolutionary relatives cooperate," Pastor Neal?

    3) What proportion of the genome is pseudogenes?

    4) What proportion of those are transcribed into RNA, which would be necessary if they had this general function?

    5) If this is such great evidence against Darwinian evolution, what does it do to the creationist claims that ID-friendly research is being suppressed?

    6) How is it that you understand the implications of the work better than the people who actually did the work? Because a blogger said so?

    7) Jesus Christ said nothing about evolution. What did He say about hypocrisy?

    This has been another edition of "Questions Pastor Neal Is Afraid to Answer."

    ReplyDelete